Talk:Dominant minority

White Americans during the mid 19th century

I periodically look at this article and every time I do, I notice that someone has deleted the section on White Americans in the south as a dominant minority. I assume that whoever keeps removing it must be disputing that African Americans outnumbered White Americans in certain Southern states, since no one can reasonably argue against the political and legal superiority held by White Americans during this time. African Americans did in fact make up a majority of the population in several states (Mississippi, Louisiana, and South Carolina), and this time I added a link from the US Census bureau to prove it (https://web.archive.org/web/20141224151538/http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/twps0056.html). African Americans had been historically concentrated in the South and did not begin moving into other areas (mostly Northeastern and Midwestern cities) until the Great Migration in the early 20th century. When they did this, their population became diluted across several regions and eventually White Southerners in those states regained their majority status. In Louisiana, African Americans made up an absolute majority or a plurality until the 20th century. And in Mississippi and South Carolina, African Americans were the undisputed majority until at least 1930. As a result, White Americans were a minority of the population, yet retained all political power after the end of Reconstruction. Therefore, White Americans from the South from the mid 19th to the early 20th centuries do in fact belong on this page as a dominant minority.

Removed biased sentence

> For instance, Nelson Mandela gained his immense popularity after years of resistance against the apartheid government of South Africa; some militant members of the dominant minority (Afrikaners) reacted to his democratic ascent with anti-civilian terrorism, by setting off car bombs at polling stations during the election that brought him to power.

While this may be factually accurate, it is deceptive. The words "resistance" was used when referring to acts by the ANC. Most objective viewers would label it as "terrorism", e.g.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Street_bombing

http://www.sahistory.org.za/dated-event/amanzimtoti-blast-kills-five

Less people died than during the isolated instances of white resistance than compared to ANC terrorism.

(More people actually died during ANC-IFP clashes, i.e. black-on-black violence) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.110.159.209 (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

African Americans as dominant minority in the US

I don't really understand why, but African-Americans are listed as a dominant minority. This is clearly not the case so I am removing them from the list. If someone believes this can be justified please cite you sources. Snake666 (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with You, but I do, however, understand why they were added. Because of Barack Obama. twitter.com/YOMALSIDOROFF (talk) 02:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Obama is a Mulatto, and thus not definitive of a black american. 107.222.205.242 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Before another Vote for Deletion:

Just to note that I decided to be bold. So, do bite the newcomers. That is all. El_C

Nah, it's good! Terrapin 19:08, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Thanks, appreciated. Sadly though, that is not the point. The VfD was implemented in a discourtious fashion. It was my firt day on WP, no one bothered informing me of it. It was slipped under my nose, and the vote was concluded before I even found out it took place. Now that is not a welcoming reception to a newcomer on his or her first day on Wikipedia. El_C

---

Added a {{Limitedgeographicscope}} tag. Lots of countries have been dominated by a minority, but the article discussing only two of them. A complete article should discuss examples such as the Fulani in medieval northwest Africa and the Manchus in Qing China. - Nat Krause 03:51, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is a good point. Such examples deserve to be discussed in this article. I suggest that White minority rule, currently a link to this article, be turned into an article in its own right. The case of the whites in southernmost Africa was quite different from that of the Manchus in Qing China, who became so assimilated to the Han majority that by the end of the dynasty there was virtually no cultural or linguistic substance to a separate Manchu identity. The whites in South Africa and "Rhodesia" had no intention of assimilating culturally or otherwise to any Black population, and they certainly did not become Black themselves. Shorne 12:53, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Violence

In both South Africa and Rhodesia, majority rule was brought about through violent upheavals.

Wait a minute. While the ANC was certainly a violent organization (indeed, described by many as a terrorist organization), and while the pressure its violence put on the white government may have contributed to the collapse of apartheid, it seems to me that larger factors in apartheid's collapse were international financial, political and moral pressures, as well as changing attitudes among South African whites. Hasn't that been a major source of praise for the new South Africa, that the transition was peaceful and that there was no violent revolution?

Similarly, Rhodesia's white minority government, rather than having been dislodged by force of arms, decided to end its economic and political isolation, and peacefully handed over power after being promised that whites would receive protectively disproportionate representation in the legislature and respect for their private property. LeoO3 04:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Partly agree. While it's valid to describe Rhodesia's Second Chimurenga as a "violent upheaval" (thousands killed in action during a military struggle that lasted 15 years and destroyed the economy), SA is questionable. MK and Poqo bombs didn't bring about the end of apartheid - sanctions did. Humansdorpie 15:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Types of dominant minority

• I have always seen the term "dominant minority" to refer to ethnic, racial or religious groups rather than to political ones. As such, i think the references to the rise of the Nazis and to electoral politics in Tony Blair's constituency should probably be removed. What do people think?

Also, virtually all societies have a dominant class normally called an aristocracy or the bourgeois or the upper-class. The unusual thing about some societies (like South Africa) is that there is also a racial minority that is dominant. This is unusual and, as i said above, i think it is cases like that for which the term 'dominant minority' can most usefully be applied to. Vino s 17:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• On the market dominant minority discussion, merging with this page was suggested. It seems valid that the idea of a market dominant minority could be considered a special case of a dominant minority and included here -- M0llusk 15:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge to dominant minority

Could be under a separate section, but AFAISI its a good idea to integrate. -St|eve 21:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

An effort should be undertaken to determine 1) are minoritarianism and dominant minority actually terms describing the same thing?, and if so, 2) Which one is the prevailing naming for such a thing? That said, at this time, I would prefer having two articles that point to each other, and clarify what the differences are in these terms--I have a strong feeling they're not exactly the same thing. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 02:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe the two are sufficiently different to merit their own aricles, although some sort of "See also" section probably wouldn't be amiss. nae'blis _(talk) 21:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Whites in SA

I see that the link to Whites in South Africa is redirected to Afrikaners. I think that there should be a own article about whites in SA. And why the afrikaners? The Afrikaners are not the only whites in SA? The is also Anglo-Africans... �Dr.Poison 21:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

That should be corrected. It is impossible to understand South African cultural circumstance without understanding that Afrikaners have tended to be poor and have little interest in commerce relative to groups of mostly British Anglo-African English speakers who dominate commerce. -- M0llusk 19:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

That is not true. Anglo Africans are a minority of the white population in South Africa anyway, and Afrikaans people are NOT poor and bad businessmen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.50.5 (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

White Business Ownership

The claim white South African's own a majority of the Businesses in South Africa is not bourne out by the source. The article in turn quotes the http://ww2.oldmutual.co.za/old-mutual-investment-group/insights/magazines/tomorrow-2016/who-owns-the-jse which hat the following statistics for 2013:

• 39% foreign owned
• 22% White South African
• 13% Black ownership through institutional investors
• 10% Direct Black ownership.

Black ownership of the JSE exceeds that of white South Africans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.27.172.154 (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention, that article is based on the idea of "White Monopoly Capital", which has been shown to be nothing more than political PR to hide a corruption scandal. See the wiki page White Monopoly Capital for more info. Any objections to removing the line in the article? - Rooiratel (talk) 11:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Indians in Fiji should not be on the list

They are the majority in Fiji

also they don't really fit the criteria for an elite since qoute the wiki article on Fiji

Commodore Frank Bainimarama refused to hold elections by 2010, elections that the Commonwealth of Nations had demanded after the 2006 coup. He states a need for more time to end a voting system that heavily favours ethnic Fijians at the expense of the multi-ethnic minorities. Critics claim that he has suspended the constitution and was responsible for human rights violations by arresting and detaining opponents.[31][32] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.28.6 (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

why no talk about Jews

they run all Muslim countries by owning banks and media!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.96.146.233 (talk) 13:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Seriously though, why no mention of Jews as the dominant minority in Europe and the United States? 79.102.4.181 (talk) 03:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I have added it. Jews have influence far beyond their proportion as a population. Did you know, for example, that over half of Democrat campaign contributions come from Jews?Winston S Smith (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Candidly-Speaking-Obama-Netanyahu-and-American-Jews

Catholics and Mormons are overrepresented too. That doesn't make them a dominant majority. Dominant minority is more when a minority group has (or had) nearly exclusive access to political power to the exclusion of the majority group. Like Whites in South Africa and Hawaii, or Jews in the West Bank. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

No group is over represented to the degree that Jews are. The problem is that the definition of the word contradicts itself. The first sentence of the definition completely contradicts the second sentence. If the first sentence is used for the definition, then the Chinese in Southeast Asia, a commonly cited example, would not apply. If the second sentence were used, then the Jews would apply. It says the second sentence is "most commonly used" so I would add a reference to the Jews but I don't want to be accused of edit warring. Someone else should do it for me.Winston S Smith (talk) 03:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

No sources?

Where are the reliable sources for the list of supposed dominant minorities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.157.86 (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Jews in the USSR

This seems blatantly untrue. Ethnic Russians were the leading political figures in the USSR, both from its foundation and during its seven decades of existence. This seems to harken back to old tropes about Bolshevism being a Jewish plot; it is also unsourced. I am removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.157.41.122 (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Ethnic Russians, really? Much different in early days. Stalin was from Georgia, as were Beria & his gang, which ran the KGB as a Georgian Mafia. Lenin was part Jewish, as were Trotsky & a large % of leaders in early years. Yagoda ran NKVD, Great Purge & White Sea Canal which killed millions. Lazar Kaganovich & brother engineered Moscow metro & famine in Ukraine. Naftaly Frenkel ran Kolyma gold mines where millions vanished. When Stalin purged Jews in 1930's & was accused of anti-Semitism, a large # of them had to be in high places for the event to happen. Same with Doctor's Purge later. I'm not saying they were all bad, but the bad guys are easy to find, which argues for a dominant minority. https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3342999,00.html Hermosa19 Hermosa19 (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

WASP reference

Why are WASPs listed as the dominant minority in the United States? It's ridiculous, just ask our Black president, Catholic vice president, Supreme Court with no protestants on it, Catholic speaker of the House, ect. The sources cited are from the 60s and 70s, they are outdated. This should be removed. Two Tune (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

"Austrians"

The term "Austrians" at the time of both the Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary referred very specifically to the people of Upper-Austria, Lower-Austria, and the Greater Vienna Capital Region. People from Tyrol, Voralburg, Styria, and various others like the Transylvanian-Saxons referred to themselves as "Germans", in fact this was the most common name for this ethnic group until after Austrian independence from the Allies during the Cold War the Austrians began to see themselves as "a separate ethnic group/people", even though many Austrians still regard themselves as "Germans" today.

--1.55.196.214 (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Communists in Communist countries?

In Poland, the party had 3 million members in a society of almost 40 million.82.177.40.227 (talk) 09:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

General clean-up and missconception of the context

The article is truly a mess in general, but one thing a lot of people is getting wrong is that having some sort of overrepresentation of a minority whether in economy, Congress or any other important space is not the same as been a dominant minority. Jews in Russia are an example, even as 50% of the economic oligarchy, that's still not been a dominant minority unless they also hold most power positions in government, army and law enforcement. Same with Evangelicals in Brazil, or Jews/Mormons/Catholics in the US, having a large representation in Congress (more than their percentage in population) again repeit after me: is not the same as been a dominant minority. A dominant minority is a minority that controls the State. That holds power in all the sense of the word, not that is just very rich or that has a lot of seats in Parliament, is a group that holds most of the political, economic and legal power. WASP in the US are a good example of that in fact (albeit it was removed) disregarding that some presidents (like one in 50) are not WASP occasionally. So with that in mind the examples section really need a clean-up. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 09:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of which, empires should not count, otherwise all empires in history should go there. The concept about the dominant minority is about societies rule by a ethnic group that is the minority, all empires had one particular nationality over others but is a different dynamic, especially due to the distant between the periphery and the metropolis which in many cases are basically different countries loosely linked politically. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Per your definition above (local minorities in control of the state), i have reinserted examples that can be reliably sourced. Krakkos (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Adding entries based on "your definition above" is OR. Let's leave out the list, which is a POV-magnet, and discuss any proposed additions here, particularly including reliable sources describing them exactly that way. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

As per WP:NAD, Wikipedia "groups articles based on what they are, not what they are called by". This article is not about the term "dominant minority", but the concept, as defined in the lead. The lead of this article states: "A dominant minority, also called elite dominance is a minority group that has overwhelming political, economic, or cultural dominance in a country, despite representing a small fraction of the overall population... The term is most commonly used to refer to an ethnic group which is defined along racial, national, religious, cultural or tribal lines and that holds a disproportionate amount of power." The content you removed referred to ethnic minorities that have held political power in various countries throughout history. It was sourced from top scholars such as Peter Heather, Michael Grant, Johannes Brøndsted, Edward Arthur Thompson, Herwig Wolfram and others. It is therefore relevant and reliable sourced. The fact that content is a "POV-magnet" does not justify removal. Wikipedia is not censored. Krakkos (talk) 09:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The article isn't a dictionary entry, so your WP:NAD link isn't relevant. Actually relevant, on the other hand, is WP:NOR. You say a group is a "dominant minority". OK, provide sources that describe them as a "dominant minority". If it's so obvious, I'm sure multiple reliable sources will have described the group that way. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:NAD is a WP:POLICY which applies to all articles on Wikipedia. Indeed this article is not a dictionary entry for the term "dominant minority". It is rather, as stated in the lead (i have already explained this, but you didn't seem to hear it), an article about the topic of "a minority group that has overwhelming political, economic, or cultural dominance in a country". Therefore, the relevance of a source is not only determined by its relevance to the term, but also by its relevance to the general topic. Krakkos (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:NAD is policy, but since this article isn't a dictionary definition, it's not relevant here. And even if it were relevant, you couldn't "fix" the problem by adding original research. And finally, I hear what you're saying, but unfortunately, it's not correct. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Your WP:NOR link states: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Although they didn't match the term, the sources i provided were directly related to the topic and directly supported the material presented. Therefore there was no original research. Krakkos (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The lead of this article actually isn't a reliable source; all the more so, your interpretation of that lead. "Dominant minority" is a very specific term, with a specific meaning; only reliable sources can determine which groups were "dominant minorities", not Wikipedia editors, per WP:NOR. I'm afraid that the only way of proving that the sources are directly related to the topic and directly support the material presented is if they "match the term". Jayjg ^(talk) 15:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Brazil is not a black-majority country

Besides it's true that Afro-Brazilians are poorer than Euro-Brazilians, only 7% of the population of the country is black. [1] Pardos are actually another ethnic group. Yes, they can be result of black and white miscigenation (the mulattos) but they also can be of indian and white descent (the mestizos), with a third group (a minority) of black and indian descent (the cafuzos). They make 43% of Brazilians. [2] White Brazilians are 47% of the population, making them the majority of the people, principally in the South and Southeast of the country. If you count White, Mulatto and Mestizo populations, almost 90% of brazilians have european ancestry, despite not all of them being White.[3]

So qualify the white brazilian elite as an "alien elite" is very weird. Yes, there is racism in the country and the black people are impoverish, but whites aren't a minority within the country.

• "Portal do IBGE — IBGE". IBGE. Retrieved 2023-09-21.
• Pena, Sérgio D. J.; Di Pietro, Giuliano; Fuchshuber-Moraes, Mateus; Genro, Julia Pasqualini; Hutz, Mara H.; Kehdy, Fernanda de Souza Gomes; Kohlrausch, Fabiana; Magno, Luiz Alexandre Viana; Montenegro, Raquel Carvalho; Moraes, Manoel Odorico; Moraes, Maria Elisabete Amaral de; Moraes, Milene Raiol de; Ojopi, Élida B.; Perini, Jamila A.; Racciopi, Clarice; Ribeiro-dos-Santos, Ândrea Kely Campos; Rios-Santos, Fabrício; Romano-Silva, Marco A.; Sortica, Vinicius A.; Suarez-Kurtz, Guilherme (2011-02-16). "The Genomic Ancestry of Individuals from Different Geographical Regions of Brazil Is More Uniform Than Expected". PLoS ONE. 6 (2). Public Library of Science (PLoS): e17063. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017063. ISSN 1932-6203.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
• Monasterio, Leonardo (2017-05-08). "Surnames and ancestry in Brazil". PLOS ONE. 12 (5). Public Library of Science (PLoS): e0176890. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0176890. ISSN 1932-6203.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

179.209.44.205 (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Exactly.

There is racism. There is strong racial unequality.

But it is really weird to claim that a white Brazilians, 47% of the population, are a "small fraction" of the population. Knoterification (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• The first link listed by 178.209.44.205 goes to the home page of a government agency, & not to any specific page or article that supports that editor's statement.
• The second link was a study that European ancestry was predominant, with proportions ranging from 60.6% in the Northeast to 77.7% in the South. The study also indicated based on self-classification, could be segregated into the following proportions for color: 48.4% White, 43.8% Brown, 6.8% Black, 0.6% Yellow, 0.3% Indigenous and 0.1% with no declaration. By my calculation, the proportion identify as brown or black, 43.8% + 6.8%, add up to 50.1%. So a bare majority consider themselves as brown or black.
• The third link is a study that states Only five immigrant groups were considered: Iberian (Spaniards and Portuguese); Italian; German; East European and Japanese. Since it appears not to discuss those who would come from brown or black ancestry, I am unsure why it was included here.

Peaceray (talk) 23:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

https://portal.unit.br/blog/noticias/preto-pardo-e-negro-entenda-quais-sao-as-diferencas/

Pardo means any multiracial person, with a multiracial phenotype.

https://portal.unit.br/blog/noticias/preto-pardo-e-negro-entenda-quais-sao-as-diferencas/

The majority of Brazilians are pardos (45,3%). White people are 42,8%

Blacks are a minority (10,6%).

https://educa.ibge.gov.br/jovens/conheca-o-brasil/populacao/18319-cor-ou-raca.html#:~:text=O%20IBGE%20pesquisa%20a%20cor,10%2C6%25%20como%20pretos. Knoterification (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, this North American article used over here makes the false claim 56% of Brazilians self-identify as black, which as shown by the IBGE, is not the case.

Pardos include people of mixed white and black origins and phenotypes, but also people of mixed indigenous and white origins and phenotypes.

https://time.com/5915902/brazil-racism-quilombos/

Not even all pardos have the right o affirmative action in university, only those with overt African phenotype.

https://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/geral/noticia/2016-08/governo-define-regras-para-candidatos-negros-em-concursos-publicos Knoterification (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)